In our research of over 12,500 organisations, we found that it is often difficult to deal with sensitive issues arising in the workplace, largely because often the very people in the room are part of the problem as well. This means that more often than not you have a sensitive issue as well as a sensitive relationship, leading to an “elephant in the room” type of situation, as typified in this blog post on the Harvard Business Review website .
Where there is a diversity of opinion, or the issue is complex, or one director does not completely trust the judgement of another, then finding the strength to have that difficult conversation is identified as not easily forthcoming. Pleasing people is the easy way out, and is a common phenomenon.  Sensitive problems, such as affairs in the workplace, or bullying, can see managers and [...]

I was invited to speak at the Risk Summit, hosted by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), which took place on 18 th November in London. At the event I was asked to answer the question of how senior executives should view and manage risk now.
The event coincided with the launch of a report by the EIU: ‘Fall guys: Risk management in the front line’. The research, which formed the basis of the report, consisted of both an online survey of some 500 global executives and further qualitative research. It highlighted some interesting points which I have touched on below. I was fortunate to have some of my views outlined below expressed in the report itself.
58% of respondents said that the most important objective of the risk management function was identifying new and emerging risks.
Input from professional risk managers can [...]

Recently I came across this article on CEO compensation in Slate by Ray Fisman. It’s a very interesting article, and the position Fisman takes, that CEOs and compensation committees usually do not enter into undue intrigue and backhand politics, is probably accurate.
Most compensation and nomination committees do take their jobs very seriously, and try to emerge with compensation packages that make sense. But the challenge they have faced and the challenge society continues to face is that of peer comparison. [...]

Is it lonely at the top? According to Andrew Cave and Steve Tappin, the authors of the new book The Secrets of CEOs (reviewed here ), it truly is. Almost half of the 150 chief executives they interviewed said the job was “intensely lonely” and they didn’t know who to turn to for advice. The authors found this to be a common response:
 

I can’t talk to the chairman because in the end he’s the one who is going to fire me. I can’t talk to my finance director because ultimately I’m going to fire him, and I can’t tell my wife because I never see her and when I do, that’s the last thing she’ll want to talk about.

This doesn’t surprise [...]

When I’m trying to explain the differences between the CEO and the Chairman of an organization, I like to use this analogy: It’s like the two of them are driving a car.
The CEO must be allowed to operate the throttle and steer the car. The chairman sits in the passenger seat. He’s there to stamp on the brakes or grab the wheel if required. The chairman and the board should be consulted on the destination, but they must not interfere while the CEO is driving, and they should leave the actual route to the executive team.

Conventional wisdom is that new CEOs need to boost earnings per share in two years or they’re out. However recent findings from Booz & Company’s latest CEO Turnover report seem to suggest otherwise. Dismissals are happening, but they’re more often caused by board infighting rather than poor CEO performance. Using ten years of data they had collected, researchers Per-Ola Karlsson, Gary L. Neilson, and Juan Carlos Webster found:
For all CEOs, the likelihood of being dismissed for poor performance in a given year is only 2.1 percent. Given this data, it is not surprising that the correlation between stock performance and dismissal is generally not significant. Indeed, the very worst-performing chief executives – those in the bottom decile, whose companies’ two-year stock price had fallen by 25 percent in absolute terms and whose companies had under­performed their regional industry peers by 45 percent – [...]

Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist,  compared two studies . One said that happy workers are more successful, and the other said that sad workers are more productive. His conclusion:
Now, if you were to describe the job of a CEO versus the job of a lower level worker, I think you might say the CEO needs to be successful (as opposed to productive) whereas the lower level worker needs to be productive (as opposed to successful). Ideally, everyone should be both successful and productive, but in terms of importance, you would prefer a successful CEO over one who has more meetings, or however else you would measure “productivity” in that job. And a factory worker, for example, needs to be productive more than he needs to “succeed,” if success even has meaning in that sort of job.
So it follows from the science that [...]

This article in VentureBeat highlights an all too common scenario: CEOs dreading board meetings and not getting anything out of them. The author, Nick Sturiale, provides some useful rules for building trust with boards and running effective meetings. One is to use the board to help solve problems:
The best boards develop a common insight around the key dynamics driving the company’s business. Common understanding is achieved by providing a holistic view set of snapshots/test results on how the company is faring and not cherry-picking the easiest results to measure.
Having everyone share the same vision is key.

In January the CEO of Bear Sterns was ‘demoted’ from CEO to Chairman of the Board.   Companies can defined these roles however they like, though I don’t think this was a very good idea. I agree with venture capitalist Pascal Levensohn, who said :
Keeping former CEOs on the board of your company is generally contra-indicated for several obvious reasons:
First, most former CEOs have strongly held continuing views and core beliefs as to how the company should continue to be run;
Second, it is emotionally very difficult for former CEOs to let go of such strongly held convictions; and
Third, people have a natural tendency to second-guess other people.

The chairman leads the board; the CEO doesn’t just report to him, the chairman hires or fires the CEO. The chairman is ultimately responsible for what the firm [...]

Earlier this month Carl Icahn started a blog  to discuss issues facing boards. Icahn has strong opinions and he doesn’t mince words:
“It is the board’s responsibility to hold a CEO accountable, and remove the CEO if he or she is not producing results. But exacting such a measure requires effort and strategic consideration, and boards are often too lazy and/or passive to rock the boat, especially since the company will continue to pay and pamper and even indemnify them under almost any circumstances. Board members receive expensive tickets to important sporting events, the theatre, and are also treated to use of the company’s fleet. Worst of all, the board itself is not made accountable because corporate board elections are generally a joke.”
Is it the board’s responsibility to hold a CEO accountable? I’d say in many cases it comes down to the [...]